I don't know. Drug addict's behavior is expensive. They clog up jails, emergency rooms, cause accidents, etc. Throw a pregnancy in there and the costs they incur becomes exponential. If they are unable to care for a child, that child needs to be put into foster care which is expensive and potentially devastating for the child. I grew up with a sibling that has drug problems, so I am well aware of the devastation they can cause emotionally and financially. Everyone else absorbs the responsibility of drug addict's behavior -- if some element can be removed from the equation and the addict is aggreeable to it, why not? $300 won't buy that much.

Maybe its because I don't want kids, don't understand someone's desire to have kids, so sterilization doesnt seem that bad to me. I am also generally angry at drug addicts who consistently suck the energy, finances and joy out of other's lives -- if you haven't already guessed that.

It's important to remember that drug addicts aren't just being selfish jerks. Addiction is a disease. The disease makes the person act in undesireable and yes, often shitty, ways. But it doesn't make them any less of a human being. Someone with an addiction disease will always be an addict, true-- but that's not to say they can never become sober or rehabilitated.

As mentioned in this thread and in other areas of the PPK, most people are actively encouraged by the medical industry against making the decision to undergo voluntary sterilization when they are mentally and physically stable. How is it in any way justifiable or ethical to doubt and undermine the decisions of clear-minded individuals, but assume that a drug addict, when presented with $300, will be making a rational decision that takes into account the long-term implications of an irreversible procedure?

You say "$300 won't buy that much," and maybe so. But that's not how addiction works- crackheads aren't sitting down with spreadsheeats planning when to roll over their CD to maximize interest and thus buy more rock. $300 is more than enough to buy the next fix, and as such it is an unfair incentive. You may as well call the program "Vasectomies for Heroin".

Absolutely.

And again, as I said before, the issue of eugenics is EXTREMELY problematic. What about sterilizing women who have had breast cancer or who carry the genetic markers for it? Breast cancer costs billions of dollars; should we just eliminate those at risk of passing it on from the gene pool? What other financial incentives can we find to sterilize people? I'm guessing there are a lot, but I'm guessing that people who are sympathetic to this idea wouldn't be down with sterilizing other "costly" or otherwise troublesome segments of society. For whatever reason, people make value judgments against people with addictions, since they're perceived to have simply made "bad choices" as opposed to struggling with a legitimate disease or disorder, so instead of treatment and compassion, they're sterilized and forgotten.

_________________These shitbirds should pay for their own elections if they aren't going to be obligated by any democratic pretense. - MumblesDon't you know that vegan meat is the gateway drug to chicken addiction? Because GMO and trans-fats. - kaerlighed

The point I was trying to make about the $300 (which going back and rereading my post, I realized I didnt make clear) was that paying someone $300 to not procreate is cheaper than using thousands and thousands of state agency or taxpayer funds to handle the medical, psychological and behavioral effects of drug addict's behavior. Nonprofits and state agencies are NOT pharmaceutical companies, so the breast cancer thing is not a fair comparison.

Ultimately, there is a limited pool of money that is needed to go towards babies, education, after-school programs, etc. The more money spent on drug addicts arrest, destruction of property or others, etc. is less money that will go toward the underserved portions of the population. Why should a child who needs the help of funded programs receive diluted care because of a shortage of funds due to drug addicts sucking it all up? (over and over?)

jordan pattern,I get your point about drug addicts being people too, and I'm not disputing that. But I think it boils down to to choosing to help one malady over the other. If I have $100 that I can use to help an innocent child or a drug addict, I'm going to pick the child.

Last edited by nimrod on Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't know. Drug addict's behavior is expensive. They clog up jails, emergency rooms, cause accidents, etc. Throw a pregnancy in there and the costs they incur becomes exponential. If they are unable to care for a child, that child needs to be put into foster care which is expensive and potentially devastating for the child. I grew up with a sibling that has drug problems, so I am well aware of the devastation they can cause emotionally and financially. Everyone else absorbs the responsibility of drug addict's behavior -- if some element can be removed from the equation and the addict is aggreeable to it, why not? $300 won't buy that much.

Maybe its because I don't want kids, don't understand someone's desire to have kids, so sterilization doesnt seem that bad to me. I am also generally angry at drug addicts who consistently suck the energy, finances and joy out of other's lives -- if you haven't already guessed that.

It's important to remember that drug addicts aren't just being selfish jerks. Addiction is a disease. The disease makes the person act in undesireable and yes, often shitty, ways. But it doesn't make them any less of a human being. Someone with an addiction disease will always be an addict, true-- but that's not to say they can never become sober or rehabilitated.

As mentioned in this thread and in other areas of the PPK, most people are actively encouraged by the medical industry against making the decision to undergo voluntary sterilization when they are mentally and physically stable. How is it in any way justifiable or ethical to doubt and undermine the decisions of clear-minded individuals, but assume that a drug addict, when presented with $300, will be making a rational decision that takes into account the long-term implications of an irreversible procedure?

You say "$300 won't buy that much," and maybe so. But that's not how addiction works- crackheads aren't sitting down with spreadsheeats planning when to roll over their CD to maximize interest and thus buy more rock. $300 is more than enough to buy the next fix, and as such it is an unfair incentive. You may as well call the program "Vasectomies for Heroin".

Absolutely.

And again, as I said before, the issue of eugenics is EXTREMELY problematic. What about sterilizing women who have had breast cancer or who carry the genetic markers for it? Breast cancer costs billions of dollars; should we just eliminate those at risk of passing it on from the gene pool? What other financial incentives can we find to sterilize people? I'm guessing there are a lot, but I'm guessing that people who are sympathetic to this idea wouldn't be down with sterilizing other "costly" or otherwise troublesome segments of society. For whatever reason, people make value judgments against people with addictions, since they're perceived to have simply made "bad choices" as opposed to struggling with a legitimate disease or disorder, so instead of treatment and compassion, they're sterilized and forgotten.

Until you've lived with a drug addict and have been burned with cruelty year after year, this is something that won't be understood. I watch Intervention too and get the reasoning that addicts should be treated with compassion, but if you havent lived with an addict, this is only an issue that you read about (detached) and think about for a short period of time, and then have the luxury to move on to other areas of your life.

When you deal with an addict day in and day out you don't have the luxury of separating yourself from it. You start with compassion for a year, get burned over and over, try tough love for a year - get burned over and over, try hating them for another year, go back to compassion for a year. Then you are tired of it because all of your energy has been sucked out by this addict. Then you try it all over, throw up your hands and become like me.

The combination of living with an addict and working for nonprofits for seven years has had a huge impact on my opinion on this. Sorry, but this topic just burns me up.

Last edited by nimrod on Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The point I was trying to make about the $300 (which going back and rereading my post, I realized I didnt make clear) was that paying someone $300 to not procreate is cheaper than using thousands and thousands of state agency or taxpayer funds to handle the medical, psychological and behavioral effects of drug addict's behavior. Nonprofits and state agencies are NOT pharmaceutical companies, so the breast cancer thing is not a fair comparison.

Ultimately, there is a limited pool of money that is needed to go towards babies, education, after-school programs, etc. The more money spent on drug addicts arrest, destruction of property or others, etc. is less money that will go toward the underserved portions of the population. Why should a child who needs the help of funded programs receive diluted care because of a shortage of funds due to drug addicts sucking it all up? (over and over?)

jordan pattern,I get your point about drug addicts being people too, and I'm not disputing that. But I think it boils down to to choosing to help one malady over the other. If I have $100 that I can use to help an innocent child or a drug addict, I'm going to pick the child.

But that isn't the way it works. It's not like for every arrest not made an amount of money goes to children in care. For another, this is not a case of drug addicts vs. children. It's a case of coercively sterilizing women (who are disproportionately poor and/or racialized) in order to "save" potential children from the effects of growing up with a substance abusing parent.

Also, the huge amounts of money being spent on the "drug war" could be redirected if the U.S. government would back off of draconian laws that put people in prison for 10 years for smoking a little bud. If you want to help children, stop putting their parents in jail. If you want to help children, create social supports for people who want and need help to stop using. If you want to help children, stop making addiction a forking life sentence and create a compassionate society that supports and encourages people in times of need rather than punishing them.

_________________"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD

Until you've lived with a drug addict and have been burned with cruelty year after year, this is something that won't be understood. I watch Intervention too and get the reasoning that addicts should be treated with compassion, but if you havent lived with an addict, this is only an issue that you read about (detached) and think about for a short period of time, and then have the luxury to move on to other areas of your life.

When you deal with an addict day in and day out you don't have the luxury of separating yourself from it. You start with compassion for a year, get burned over and over, try tough love for a year - get burned over and over, try hating them for another year, go back to compassion for a year. Then you are tired of it because all of your energy has been sucked out by this addict. Then you try it all over, throw up your hands and become like me.

I'm very sorry that this is your experience. It sounds very painful and like it affected you greatly.

But please don't assume we don't know what we're talking about. I grew up around really forked up substance abuse, and I still feel the effects of it today. Other people on the board have had loved ones who were substance abusers or may have been addicts at one time themselves.

My experience of living with the effects of addiction makes me so sure that people need help. And they need to be treated with respect and dignity, not have their basic human rights taken away. And let's not mince words here, sterilizing someone without their freely given informed consent is a violent stripping of the basic human right of autonomy.

_________________"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD

Last edited by j-dub on Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[/quote] Also, the huge amounts of money being spent on the "drug war" could be redirected if the U.S. government would back off of draconian laws that put people in prison for 10 years for smoking a little bud. If you want to help children, stop putting their parents in jail. If you want to help children, create social supports for people who want and need help to stop using. If you want to help children, stop making addiction a forking life sentence and create a compassionate society that supports and encourages people in times of need rather than punishing them.[/quote]

This will never happen. All the more reason not to bring child into this world.

Also, the huge amounts of money being spent on the "drug war" could be redirected if the U.S. government would back off of draconian laws that put people in prison for 10 years for smoking a little bud. If you want to help children, stop putting their parents in jail. If you want to help children, create social supports for people who want and need help to stop using. If you want to help children, stop making addiction a forking life sentence and create a compassionate society that supports and encourages people in times of need rather than punishing them.[/quote]

This will never happen. All the more reason not to bring child into this world.[/quote]So don't have children.

This issue is NOT about children, it's about stripping women's rights.

_________________"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD

i dont see this as being about eugenics and not wanting addicts genes to carry on. i see it more as addicts (that are using at the time) fork their babies up for life with physical and mental disabilities and if the baby isnt taken away immediately (they usually arent), then more really shitty things happen to the baby until its finally removed. and that all forking sucks. this isnt to say that i think addicts cant mostly recover and have children and be great parents. its just that many get pregnant and are shitty parents until the state steps in and i wish those people would stop having multiple babies. i still dont think i can get behind this movement. maybe if it was free sterilizations id be more at ease as it would eliminate the coercion aspect.

Until you've lived with a drug addict and have been burned with cruelty year after year, this is something that won't be understood. I watch Intervention too and get the reasoning that addicts should be treated with compassion, but if you havent lived with an addict, this is only an issue that you read about (detached) and think about for a short period of time, and then have the luxury to move on to other areas of your life.

When you deal with an addict day in and day out you don't have the luxury of separating yourself from it. You start with compassion for a year, get burned over and over, try tough love for a year - get burned over and over, try hating them for another year, go back to compassion for a year. Then you are tired of it because all of your energy has been sucked out by this addict. Then you try it all over, throw up your hands and become like me.

The combination of living with an addict and working for nonprofits for seven years has had a huge impact on my opinion on this. Sorry, but this topic just burns me up.

I understand what you're saying, and I sympathize with your struggles with your sister and working with nonprofits. This topic is a hot one for me too, and while I disagree with you, I certainly respect your opinion.

I believe that policy built upon peoples' personal experiences is bad policy. Yes, you have had an extremely difficult time, and yes, you have had an experience that I have not. However, I'm not arguing that "drug addicts are people too." I'm arguing that taking a stance that ANY segment of the population is unfit and should be sterilized in order to prevent them from creating more problems is forked up in the extreme and often the first step down an incredibly slippery slope. It doesn't matter whether your stated aim is to save money (and again, I ask people who think this is a good idea whether more expensive segments of the population should also be sterilized to prevent their inordinate "drain" on society's resources - should obese people with poor dietary habits be sterilized?) or to create a master race.

I don't care whether it's drug addicts, mentally disabled people, "moral degenerates," "gypsies," poor people, sick people, whatever. Advocating removing segments of the population from the gene pool is wrong, whether it's by coercion (as this most certainly is) or by force, and whether the genetic consequences are made explicit or not.

Rocklobster, I understand that the intent of this may not (though it may) explicitly be to remove drug addicts from the gene pool. However, it certainly has that effect and certainly endorses the method for dealing with the problem.

_________________These shitbirds should pay for their own elections if they aren't going to be obligated by any democratic pretense. - MumblesDon't you know that vegan meat is the gateway drug to chicken addiction? Because GMO and trans-fats. - kaerlighed

That said, I believe that policy built upon peoples' personal experiences is bad policy. Yes, you have had an extremely difficult time, and yes, you have had an experience that I have not. However, I'm not arguing that "drug addicts are people too." I'm arguing that taking a stance that ANY segment of the population is unfit and should be sterilized in order to prevent them from creating more problems is forked up in the extreme and often the first step down an incredibly slippery slope.

jordanpattern, thanks for your post. Youve made an excellent point here and one that I get. I will never look at this the way others here do, because I only see my personal experience and the anger its caused me. Because of that, I get your point intellectually, but emotionally I do not and don't think I ever will. But I do appreciate your post.

But please don't assume we don't know what we're talking about. I grew up around really forked up substance abuse, and I still feel the effects of it today. Other people on the board have had loved ones who were substance abusers or may have been addicts at one time themselves.

My experience of living with the effects of addiction makes me so sure that people need help. And they need to be treated with respect and dignity, not have their basic human rights taken away. And let's not mince words here, sterilizing someone without their freely given informed consent is a violent stripping of the basic human right of autonomy.

Thank you j-dub.

Exactly what I wanted to say. I did a lot of bad things and made many bad decisions when I was in my addiction. Now that I am recovered, hearing this is horrifying. I imagine if I had agreed to something like this and now couldnt have babies...how terrible it would be. Especially when I have learned so much and have a tremendous passion for life and tons of love to give.

nimrod, I'm sorry about your experiences. Not a day goes by that I don't think about people I have hurt in the past. I know it must hurt.

But please don't assume we don't know what we're talking about. I grew up around really forked up substance abuse, and I still feel the effects of it today. Other people on the board have had loved ones who were substance abusers or may have been addicts at one time themselves.

My experience of living with the effects of addiction makes me so sure that people need help. And they need to be treated with respect and dignity, not have their basic human rights taken away. And let's not mince words here, sterilizing someone without their freely given informed consent is a violent stripping of the basic human right of autonomy.

Thank you j-dub.

Exactly what I wanted to say. I did a lot of bad things and made many bad decisions when I was in my addiction. Now that I am recovered, hearing this is horrifying. I imagine if I had agreed to something like this and now couldnt have babies...how terrible it would be. Especially when I have learned so much and have a tremendous passion for life and tons of love to give.

nimrod, I'm sorry about your experiences. Not a day goes by that I don't think about people I have hurt in the past. I know it must hurt.

This is why her program is a bad idea. People recover. That's the point. I also appreciate Jordanpattern and Erika's posts. I see where you're coming from, nimrod, and I think it's really insightful to note that your view is probably based on your personal experience(s), just as my viewpoint comes from one similar to j-dub and graffiti's.

Excuse me, but are we really arguing about the "deserving poor"? Mind. Blown.

And rocklobster, what evidence do you have that most addicts don't have their children taken away at birth?

This thread is making me extremely sad. Drug users are human beings.

I'm not naive about the subject. I saw my uncle experience a seizure from alcohol withdrawal at the age of 8. I go to my internship and get yelled at and called a bisque/croissant/other creative insult. I almost lost my internship on my first day because a woman took advantage of my being new to the job and stole narcotics from the medication cabinet under my nose.

However, every day I am amazed by these women - their strength and resilience. The thought of taking advantage their desperation to push your own agenda (as "noble" as it may be) breaks my heart.

And rocklobster what evidence do you have that most addicts don't have their children taken away at birth?

no evidence, just personal experience working in addictions research. eventually the kids end up in foster care, but in my experience, in buffalo, it seems to not happen at birth which in my opinion, from seeing what happens when theyre not taken at birth, they should be taken then.

And rocklobster what evidence do you have that most addicts don't have their children taken away at birth?

no evidence, just personal experience working in addictions research. eventually the kids end up in foster care, but in my experience, in buffalo, it seems to not happen at birth which in my opinion, from seeing what happens when theyre not taken at birth, they should be taken then.

OK- oh and it wasn't a criticism, just wondering. I find that children are almost always taken away at birth- but I guess different country/possibly different drug user population could influence that.

That said, I believe that policy built upon peoples' personal experiences is bad policy. Yes, you have had an extremely difficult time, and yes, you have had an experience that I have not. However, I'm not arguing that "drug addicts are people too." I'm arguing that taking a stance that ANY segment of the population is unfit and should be sterilized in order to prevent them from creating more problems is forked up in the extreme and often the first step down an incredibly slippery slope.

jordanpattern, thanks for your post. Youve made an excellent point here and one that I get. I will never look at this the way others here do, because I only see my personal experience and the anger its caused me. Because of that, I get your point intellectually, but emotionally I do not and don't think I ever will. But I do appreciate your post.

Thank you for this. I do appreciate and sympathize with your situation, and I sincerely hope it improves for you. :)

_________________These shitbirds should pay for their own elections if they aren't going to be obligated by any democratic pretense. - MumblesDon't you know that vegan meat is the gateway drug to chicken addiction? Because GMO and trans-fats. - kaerlighed

Many people have queried why she isn't promoting the use of long term contraceptive implants and I have to say I do agree.

There is something scary about paying women to undergo an irreversible operation. What if the operation goes wrong? At least vasectomies can be reversed, but the last I knew, female sterilization was permanent.

Many people have queried why she isn't promoting the use of long term contraceptive implants and I have to say I do agree.

There is something scary about paying women to undergo an irreversible operation. What if the operation goes wrong? At least vasectomies can be reversed, but the last I knew, female sterilization was permanent.

It depends on the method of sterilization- tubal ligations can potentially be reversed, but it's quite difficult.